It should be noted that although at the time of the first interrogation of defendant 2, the investigative unit already had the video from the Paz station (P/56B) and the testimony of the seller, Liav Ben Hamo (P/36), who explained that the person in the video had asked to purchase a flashlight, and despite the fact that defendant 2 was interrogated in this regard at the end of his first interrogation; This does not indicate that Investigator Benita already had a well-founded suspicion regarding the involvement of Defendant 2 in the murder himself, beyond the suspicion that arose in him at the end of the interrogation (in view of the contradictions in his testimony and the scratches on his hands), which led him to update Superintendent Michaeli and the commander of the Division Unit. In this context, it should be noted that the argument raised in the defense summaries, according to which in light of the aforementioned video, it was clear to the investigation team at that stage that Defendant 2 was connected to the murder, was not at all hurled at Investigator Benita or the other investigators in their cross-examinations, and they were not given the opportunity to address it.
From all of the above, it emerges that at the time of Defendant 2's first interrogation, and in fact until Defendant 2's conversation with the commander of the Special Operations Unit, the investigators had no evidence linking the defendants to the murder of the deceased, as opposed to involvement in a drug deal with him; and that there is no basis for the claim that the investigators believed that there was evidence linking Defendant 2 to involvement in the murder, but that they interrogated him on suspicion of drug offenses only, as part of an interrogation exercise intended to mislead him and lead him to give up his rights.
It should also be noted that already at the beginning of the first interrogation of Defendant 2 he was informed of his rights, he was explained the suspicions attributed to him (as aforesaid, drug offenses), his rights were explained to him, including the right to counsel and the right to public defender, and he waived consulting with an attorney, and even signed a form notifying the suspect's rights prior to interrogation (Appendix L/10).